Post
|
Commentary
|
|
1
|
Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Unitarian Universalist on 7 Mar 2015 at 9:13PM
This phrase is frequently used to refer to lgbt people by evangelical, fundamentalist, orthodox, "Bible believing" or whatever they wish to call themselves Christians. It is often utilized to "politely" oppose equality for this population (often called "special rights"). I've also heard this statement followed such derogatory terms as "Sodomite". Lastly I know of it being used to justify through love by parents to kick out their children.
|
Very interesting topic. It does seem a weasly phrase.
|
2
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 7 Mar 2015 at 9:24PM
"I'm done. I can't look my gay brother in the eye anymore and say "I love the sinner but hate the sin." I can't keep drawing circles in the sand. I thought I just needed to try harder. Maybe I needed to focus more on loving the sinner, and less on protesting the sin. But even if I was able to fully live up to that "ideal," I'd still be wrong. I'd still be viewing him as something other, something different. Not human. Not friend. Not Christian. Not brother. Sinner."
"And despite all my theological disclaimers about how I'm just as much a sinner too, it's not the same. We don't use that phrase for everybody else. Only them. Only "the gays." That's the only place where we make "sinner" the all-encompassing identity."
|
Here’s a view from a Christian who has decided to stop using the phrase.
|
3
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by Unitarian Universalist on 8 Mar 2015 at 7:58AM
In my opinion, this guy's testimony "hits the nail on the head"- especially about the condescending nature of this phrase.
|
|
4
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A non-conformist Christian on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:30PM
I think what he's saying is that regardless of whether or not homosexuality is a sin (he's not making a stance on that subject for some reason) he's going to choose to love the "person" as themselves and not look at them as a "sinner" at all. We're all "sinners" after all, so why make this distinction with this one group of people.
|
|
5
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 8 Mar 2015 at 7:01AM
Actually and technically, "sodomy" refers to more than homosexual activity and could easily apply to heterosexual activity--look up the word and you'll see what I mean (I'd post a link but I'm not sure it's permissible given the content). Even more technically--from the content of Genesis--it could refer to forced sexual relations, or rape. That means that when Scripture condemns sodomy, the extent of the first century understanding of the term is somewhat unclear.
|
Why on earth has the Christian Apologist introduced the word “Sodomy” into the conversation? This implies the “sin” under discussion is anal sex. So it seems the basis of the argument is sex. I have always wondered why overtly religious people have such an interest in what other people get up to in private.
Perhaps this is just a random, off-topic intervention.
|
6
|
Personally--as I've said before--I'm somewhat equivocal regarding my own position on the matter of homosexuality and am not likely to please anyone. I don't know the extent to which volition plays a part in the matter or genetic inheritance. I don't feel I'm in a position to either support or condemn the practice. I believe it is one of those issues that the whole church needs to pray for guidance on and of course perfectly frank discussions on the matter as well. In any case, I know that all Christians are called to live "chaste" lives (obviously not in its total abstinence meaning or we'd become extinct!) and that does seem to call for some restraint on the part of everyone.
|
Chaste lives? Restraint is a different topic. We were not discussing promiscuity. It does seem to be an off-topic intervention.
|
7
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by Unitarian Universalist on 8 Mar 2015 at 7:50AM
I'm aware that sodomy includes other sorts of activity. But more recently it has been aimed at homosexuals.
|
|
8
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 8 Mar 2015 at 1:22PM
I've always thought it weird that religious authorities feel a need to debate and dictate what consenting adults can and can't do behind closed doors, but I think the sodomy objection is part of a wider dogma that any sexual activity is sinful if procreation is not intended.
|
|
9
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Pantheist on 8 Mar 2015 at 2:05PM
I wonder why God would have created the act to be pleasurable if it were sinful to do it other than purely for procreation then?
Sounds like a case of Un-intelligent Design to me.
|
|
10
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 8 Mar 2015 at 8:42PM
not true with respect to procreation. Married Christians remain sexually active well past their child bearing years. And there is nothing in the Bible that says sexual activity is sinful if procreation is not the goal. If that were God's plan, a woman would get pregnant easier. Sexual activity is sinful if it's outside of a man-woman marriage relationship. That's the biblical standard for everyone.
|
An interesting interpretation of “God’s Plan”! And could it really be easier to get a woman pregnant?
I’m not sure that this apparent “Biblical Standard” is the standard for everyone. But let’s assume it is true for this Creationist.
|
11
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A non-conformist Christian on 8 Mar 2015 at 8:46PM
Does the bible specifically say marriage has to be man/woman? I know people say that, but haven't seen which verse(s) make this clear.
|
|
12
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 8 Mar 2015 at 8:58PM
The non-conformist Christian makes a good point. What the Bible actually says is one thing. How it's interpreted is something else.
|
|
13
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Pantheist on 8 Mar 2015 at 8:52PM
well Jesus wasn't married to a woman according to most Christians, so I'll leave what that may mean to your imagination!
|
It’s interesting to speculate whether Jesus was gay, or asexual, or heterosexual, or bisexual. Of course we will never know.
|
14
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:36PM
There are plenty of places in the Bible where it's clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. It doesn't have to say that specifically to understand this. The Bible is completely clear on a lot of things. For example, sexual purity and why it's important. That ties into marriage. As for marriage being between a man and a woman, there are zero verses that say anything about a man and a man or a woman and a woman being in a marriage relationship. But there are plenty of man/woman references:
Genesis 2:22-24
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Proverbs 5:18-19
18 May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. 19 A loving doe, a graceful deer-- may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.
Proverbs 12:4
4 A wife of noble character is her husband's crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones.
Proverbs 18:22
22 He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD.
Ephesians 5:22-33
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30 for we are members of his body. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32 This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Matthew 19:4-6
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
There are many more references that can point to man/woman marriage relationships. As for same sex relationships:
Romans 1:26–27
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
1 Corinthians 6:9
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
|
I have to say Proverbs 5:18-19 provides a lot of scope for innuendo!
The thing is... the Christians who do not consider homosexuality to be a sin quote different verses, or interpret these verses differently.
|
Whenever marriage is mentioned in the Bible it is always between a man and a woman. And the Biblical view of marriage is a universal concept for every civilization in the history of the world. Even nature itself argues against homosexuality. Men and women fit together sexually and men and men (or woman to woman) don't.
|
I’m pretty sure marriage isn’t mentioned in the bible, but that seems irrelevant.
Now... what’s this about nature arguing against homosexuality? I wonder where that argument comes from.
|
|
15
|
There are plenty of diverse opinions on this. A simple google search (or duckduckgo.com ) will yield plenty of dissenting views.
|
Very true - Christians who defend homosexuality will also use the Bible to support their argument. So interpretation is key.
|
16
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A non-conformist Christian on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:49PM
Those are some good verses, thank you for that, but what about in Luke Chapter 17 when they're talking about the rapture and it says: "I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." To me this sounds like a homosexual male will be raptured, why would that be if he was living in sin right up until then?
|
Another example of how the Bible can be interpreted, in this chase to support a humanist point of view.
|
17
|
As far as nature itself arguing against homosexuality, it is true that they don't "fit together sexually" in a conventional way, at the same time isn't it possible that homosexuality is natures way of helping us fight against overpopulation? A way for people to still feel like they are in a loving relationship without any chance of procreation?
|
|
18
|
I don't know what the right answer is to this question, and to be honest I'm actually a bit jaded against homosexuality because of personal issues I've gone through in my past, but I'm trying to see if it is actually a "sin", but even if it is, it's not our place to judge others for their sins, so we should still treat them with love and respect and let God make the judgment when it's time. JMO
|
|
19
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:13PM
Other versions have that Luke 17 passage as "two people" But either way, it's a stretch to suggest that this passage would speak in terms of homosexuality. It's speaking of the principle of the rapture. Nothing else.
|
Interpretation, again.
|
20
|
I don't think homosexuality is natures way of dealing with population. Nature isn't a thing at any rate and it's simply used as a metaphor regarding God's design.
|
Nature isn’t a thing?! Nature is the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations. That’s definitely a thing! This does highlight a Creationist contradiction: Nature is a metaphor for “God’s design” – and all the things in nature are designed by God.
|
21
|
Any sex outside a marriage covenant is sinful. And clearly sex between a man and a man (or woman and a woman) is sinful as the Bible clearly articulates. The culture says otherwise but that's not the standard that I go by on this issue. I probably have more questions on this issue than I do answers but at this point I can't see the issue any differently than what I've said here.
|
“clearly articulates”? If that was true there would be no disagreement among Christians.
|
22
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:39PM
How can you say "nature itself argues against homosexuality" when homosexuality exists nature?
|
|
23
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:40PM
I think that argument is seriously flawed. You know know that men and women have different plumbing right?
|
Hilarious!
|
24
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:43PM
LOL
But seriously... how can you say that nature itself is against homosexuality, when homosexuality exists in nature?
|
|
25
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:44PM
So your saying it's perfectly natural?
|
Not sure how “perfectly” applies here because nature is not perfect but anyway...
|
26
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:47PM
Yes of course. It's also "perfectly natural" for a percentage of the population to be infertile, or asexual, or any other biological trait you can mention.
|
|
27
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 8 Mar 2015 at 9:59PM
so what follows from that?
|
I don’t think anything follows. What does he mean?
|
28
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:01PM
I don't know what you mean.
|
|
29
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:16PM
You crack me up Columbo. In Kindergarten Cop the little 5 year old boy informs his teacher, "Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina." Unless I missed something, those two go together like hand in glove. All the mechanics of those two "things" work in harmony with each other. And that's the end of it. The way and P and V work together is NOT duplicated in any way like a P and a P or a V and a V. It's so simple that even a kindergarten student gets it.
|
Oh dear. The Creationist seems to be losing the plot here. I predict a meltdown.
Should I point out that The Creationist is basing his argument on the sexual knowledge of a 5 year old? Better not. It wouldn't go down well. (No pun intended).
|
30
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:22PM
As I said it is natural for a percentage of the population to be infertile, homosexual, asexual or whatever. I don't see how an aspect of nature can be unnatural. You appear to have a reasonable grasp of the mechanics of human reproduction, but it's not "unnatural" to use your word, if every indiviual in the entire population does not or cannot reproduce. It's just nature.
|
|
31
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:27PM
actually you are wrong. When someone is infertile, there is something that is not working properly. The same can be said of asexual or whatever. So you're using the word "natural" incorrectly here.
|
Actually I'm not wrong! Is he seriously suggesting that an infertile man or woman is “unnatural”??
|
32
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:31PM
I'm using the word natural to mean "existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind." Infertility (due to natural causes) and indeed any aspect of biology, including homosexuality, fits that definition. Ironically, several treatments for infertility do not fit that definition.
|
|
33
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:35PM
Well than any thing that happens in nature is natural according to you.
|
I think the Creationist is confusing "immoral" with "unnatural". Things can be natural and moral, or natural and immoral, or unnatural and moral... etc.
|
34
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:37PM
That's a truism.
|
|
35
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:51PM
Except that:
Definition of UNNATURAL
1: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
Which means that "natural" is defined as being "in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events"
|
Interesting use of the dictionary to define an antonym. Well I suppose I can use the same logic (except it’s not logic of course)...
|
36
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 8 Mar 2015 at 11:04PM
Except that unnatural is also defined as "not existing in nature" which means that, using your logic, natural is defined as existing in nature.
In any case, I don't see a problem if you consider something to be unnatural and I don't, because the word has different meanings.
|
|
37
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 9 Mar 2015 at 1:33AM
well if there are different meanings you just flattened your own argument
|
This is quite a common flawed argument used by apologists and creationists. If someone uses a dictionary to explain the meaning of the word they are using, they feel it can somehow be negated if the word has two meanings.
|
38
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Pantheist on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:27PM
homosexuality exists in other animals as well as humans, so it must be natural. There are also the added complication of hermaphrodites (both true & pseudo), X-Y females and animals that change sex ( Sequential hermaphroditism in several marine species)
|
|
39
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:28PM
And dogs will hump couches and little lady's legs. hmmmmmm....could it be???
|
The Creationist really does seem to have gone into a tail spin. What point is he trying to make with the example of a dog in heat having the need to masturbate when there is no female available?
|
40
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Pantheist on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:31PM
don't be so ridiculous and do some proper research, before you fall off your high horse - you look quite precarious perched up there
|
|
41
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:38PM
Homosexuality in animals is a myth. And if you're now going to cite "behaviors" you'd better explain the couch humping and the humping on Aunt Jean's leg while yer at it.
|
Is the Creationist really unaware of the explanation of why a dog (among other animals) would masturbate?
He also seems totally unaware of the animal behaviour research which shows that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom.
However, I’m not sure if any of this is relevant n the context of “sin”
|
42
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:49PM
Homosexuality in other species is not a myth because it's been observed - but even if it hadn't - there are many behaviours that are not seen in every species. So it wouldn't matter if homosexuality was unique to humans. But it isn't
|
|
43
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 8 Mar 2015 at 10:54PM
Something has been observed and then explained but it doesn't mean that the explanations are correct. A male dog with hump another male but a female will also do some humping. And then there's poor Aunt Jean's leg. I wonder if some dogs have legosexuality? After all, it's been observed. I saw a dog hump air molecules once. At least he was humping something and he was all alone so.....
|
Again... an apparent complete lack of knowledge of why a dog would “hump” – I wonder if this disanalogy of dog masturbation an homosexuality has come from a Creationist website?
|
44
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 8 Mar 2015 at 11:01PM
That's not unique to dogs by the way.
|
It’s also true of Creationists. LOL. Sorry.
|
45
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 9 Mar 2015 at 1:39AM
then it more supports my point that homosexuality in animals is a myth. And even if it was, what follows from that? That homosexuality in humans is perfectly fine and "normal?" Some animals eat their young. Other animals kill each other either for food or status. This argument "animals do it" is simply weak and silly.
|
There is a good point hiding in here somewhere... whether something is natural or unnatural is irrelevant. The argument is about morality. So yes, the argument “animals do it” is weak and silly if we are deciding what’s moral. But it’s not silly if we are discussing what’s natural, and it was the Creationist who introduced the “against nature” justification on line 47
He appears to be retreating from his own argument now. About time too...
|
46
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 9 Mar 2015 at 6:46AM
If one insists on appealing to animal sexual behavior suggesting that somehow it proves homosexuality in humans is normal, the need to do better than "it's been observed." True a male chimp will mount another male chimp but the will also mount a tree stump. It's the sexual instinct that's at work here and not a sexual preference.
|
Where DOES he get this stuff? LOL
|
47
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Pantheist on 9 Mar 2015 at 5:08AM
The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not "officially" observed on a large scale until recent times, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes to same-sex sexual behavior, innocent confusion, or even from a fear of "being ridiculed by their colleagues." Georgetown University biologist Janet Mann states "Scientists who study the topic are often accused of trying to forward an agenda, and their work can come under greater scrutiny than that of their colleagues who study other topics." They also noted "Not every sexual act has a reproductive function ... that's true of humans and non-humans." It appears to be widespread amongst social birds and mammals, particularly the sea mammals and the primates. The true extent of homosexuality in animals is not known. While studies have demonstrated homosexual behavior in a number of species, Petter Bøckman, the scientific advisor of the exhibition Against Nature? in 2007, speculated that the true extent of the phenomenon may be much larger than was then recognized:
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.
|
A good summary
|
48
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 9 Mar 2015 at 5:26AM
Wikipedia is no "proper research"
|
Well, that’s true, but only if one takes a Wikipedia article at face value. One should check out the citations, rather than just rely on the article.
|
49
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 9 Mar 2015 at 6:01AM
And then there's this from the NARTH Institute
“Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.”
|
Oh dear. The NARTH institute. Hahahahaha!!
he Creationist demolishes his “proper research” argument by using information from the NARTH institute – an organisation that aims to provide “therapy” which will change the sexual orientation of homosexuals an which uses theology to justify its methods.
“The American Psychological Association and the Royal College of Psychiatrists expressed concerns that the positions espoused by NARTH are not supported by science and create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish”
|
50
|
Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos médicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89; as quoted in Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, “The Animal Homosexuality Myth,” at c/2010/09/the-animal-homosexuality-myth/
|
This is even funnier. = one can only assume the Creationist googled “animal homosexuality myth” and came up with this
|
51
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A non-conformist Christian on 9 Mar 2015 at 6:30AM
For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such
This is the part I'm referring to, it seems like flawed logic. Of course the majority of individuals in any species are going to be determined to ensure the procreation of the species, that doesn't mean it's impossible for a few members of said species to be "different".
|
Good point
|
52
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 9 Mar 2015 at 6:31AM
Basically it points out the the sexual instinct behavior in animals may resemble homosexual behavior, but it is simply The animal acting on instincts. The animal is not displaying a sexual preference. They are simply behaving according to their instincts
|
And what is a “sexual preference” if it is not behaving according to instincts? One could argue that homosexual and heterosexual human beings are behaving according to their instincts.
|
53
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Pantheist on 9 Mar 2015 at 7:06AM
terrible website, can't find anything on it, the link doesn't go to what you've indicated.
Hardly impartial research either...
|
|
54
|
NARTH Institute Position Statements
Right to Treatment
The Alliance respects each client's dignity, autonomy and free agency.We believe that clients have the right to claim a gay identity, or to diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential.The right to seek therapy to change one's sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable.We call on our fellow mental-health association to stop falsely claiming to have "scientific knowledge" that settles the issue of homosexuality. Instead, our mental-health associations must leave room for diverse understandings of the family, of core human identity, and the meaning and purpose of human sexuality.
What a load of dingo's kidneys "diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential" ROFL!
|
NARTH is certainly a dodgy organisation.
|
55
|
Try to look at these references
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150206-are-there-any-homosexual-animals
|
|
56
|
now, if you can find some "real" evidence that it's fiction - I might listen, otherwise crawl back into your religious homophobic box
|
Tempers are running high – but that’s a bit harsh!
|
57
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by Unitarian Universalist on 9 Mar 2015 at 7:00AM
It's a nice intellectual discussion to talk about who is natural & unnatural until one realizes they are talking about someone's loved ones or to real people who are lgbt. No one would choose to be gay & subject themselves to assertions that they are unnatural or worse. And so called reparative therapy is a joke. So, i have to believe it is natural for them to be that way and a loving God would want their loving relationships to be honored & celebrated.
|
Very good point
|
58
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 9 Mar 2015 at 7:06AM
Adults should be able to have such discussions without worrying that someone's feelings will get hurt. We are after all currently focusing on the animal kingdom. And I have relatives that are gay. I would not discuss this with them unless the asked. But this is a discussion forum. If you choose to read what's here...
|
|
59
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by Unitarian Universalist on 9 Mar 2015 at 7:19AM
We can add whatever we want to these discussions. I started this thread so I know what its about, & i choose to address sensitivity issues now.
|
|
60
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 9 Mar 2015 at 8:55AM
I think this thread clearly demonstrates two things:
- scripture is interpreted to suit pre-conceived opinions
- ignorance makes a significant contribution to prejudice.
Also, it's not the first time here that a Christian admits to having opinions which they can only share anonymously. I'd be questioning the basis of my beliefs if I was in that situation.
|
|
61
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Born Again Christian on 9 Mar 2015 at 12:37PM
This thread demonstrates nothing of the kind, Jim. The Scriptures that A Creationist quoted are clear statements of "one man/one woman" marriage, which is how God created it "from the beginning". There is no interpretation necessary, unless you want to make it fit your preconceived (an ironic description, BTW) idea that homosexuality is "natural".
Ignorance has nothing to do with A Creationist's points. His point that at a certain stage in the "discussion", the name calling starts is valid. Why don't you back that statement up with facts, Jim?
The Creationist did not say that he would only share his opinions anonymously (neither did I, if that's who you were referencing). He was merely stating that he has compassion for people and that context determines conversation, as it should. Do you have the same discussions at work that you do with your wife in bed? I hope not!
|
ahhh... if only Scriptures really were "clear statements" Then they wouldn't need interpretation.
I'm not defending name calling - but the ignorance was to do with biology (see lines 39 to 44)
|
62
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 9 Mar 2015 at 2:33PM
Christians who are in favour of <insert moral standpoint here>, and Christians who are against <insert moral standpoint here>, each interpret Scripture to suit their point of view. That is a fact.
The ignorance I was referring to relates to biology and animal behaviour rather than theology, specifically the example of canine masturbatory behaviour, which was used to support the idea that homosexuality is a sin.
And as I said, if I held a religious belief that was going to offend my family, or my co-workers, or my wife in bed, I'd seriously ask myself why I held that belief. (I also can't help wondering why the religiose are so fixated with what goes on in other people's beds!) Anyway, I wasn't referring to you regarding religious opinions that may be offensive but I am now curious as to why you thought that. I will skim through what you've said in the past to see what it might have been!
|
|
63
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 11 Mar 2015 at 12:41AM
Yikes! Got busy for a couple of days and came back to a board with well over 100 new posts! Fascinating discussion--here's my two cents worth that hopefully somewhat clarifies my take on the subject.
Scripture is, indeed, straightforward regarding the purpose and role of sex in loving, bonded, faithful heterosexual relationships, from Genesis to the words of Jesus:
"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."
--Genesis 2:24
I like this passage from the OT for its further clarity regarding God's purpose:
"Has not the one God made you? You belong to Him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth."
--Malachi 2:15
The words of Jesus:
"Pharisees came up to (Jesus) and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh.What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
--Matthew 19:3-6
|
Aaaahh. Here we go again with the Bible interpretations. All well and good, but the Christians who do not consider homosexuality to be a sin have a different interpretation. Typically they will tell that whatever the Bible says may have been appropriate thousands of years ago, but not today. For example... commandments not to ear mixed fibres, or stoning women to death for adultery and so on. |
64
|
Several other passages support sex as only between a man and a woman and only within marriage. In the continuation of the excerpt from Matthew, Jesus goes on to condemn divorce further, stating that marrying a divorced person or marrying if one is divorced is an act of adultery!
|
This proves the point that the Bible is not always appropriate. Jesus concerns divorce but most 21st Christians are OK with divorce. So why not apply the same logic to gay marriage? |
65
|
Likewise, sexual practices that are not part of a loving familial context are condemned--whether such practices involve homosexuality, prostitution, bestiality, incest, or other matters referred to as "perversions" and even include lustful intent: "he who looks at another in lust commits adultery." Presumably fetishes and other sexual practices and proclivities which would interfere with loving relationships between a husband and wife could be added as well.
|
It is a common tactic by the anti-gay community to put homosexuality in the same sentence as bestiality and incest. And notice the assumption that homosexual "sexual practice" is not part of a "loving familial context". The bias and bigotry is clear. |
66
|
Get the picture? Are any of us in a position to throw stones at anyone else when it comes to violating God's perfect plan and perfect will? I'm certainly not!! Singling out homosexuality for condemnation while giving--say--divorce and remarriage or "looking at others in lust" a wink and a nod is not being consistent with what Scripture actually states! Furthermore, as Jesus makes clear, even if one is guilty of sin--as we all are--we are still to treat each other with love, and as the title of the thread states "love the sin and not the sinner!"
|
Actually I don't get the picture at all. One minute it's wrong to throw stones, the previous minute stones were being thrown by the bucketful! |
67
|
There is also the issue of culpability depending on one's circumstance. Just as one's involuntary attention to the sexual attractiveness of another does not become a matter of sin unless or until one chooses to indulge such, there is the question of whether those with a particular unusual sexual proclivity are born that way or develop that proclivity through choice. One cannot fault another who just isn't genetically disposed to the type of sexual attraction leading to procreation and loving families and expect them to "perform" or "function" in that way. Of course, if one develops such proclivities through personally choosing to indulge such--whatever those proclivities might be--it would be a different matter and involve culpability.
|
What does "indulge" mean I wonder? And I see the old chestnut about "choosing" has crept it. I wonder when the Apologist chose to be straight? |
68
|
So the long and the short of it on my take on the matter: yes, homosexuality is outside of God's will if undertaken voluntarily, as are any of the other practices which would interfere with a loving and faithful relationship between a man and a woman and their ability to procreate and raise a loving family--but that's in the abstract. What of those physically unable to either sexually perform or procreate in those circumstances? What of infertility? Spousal abandonment? Forced marriage? Early exposure to incidents which would warp one's ability to form healthy, loving, bonding, procreative heterosexual relationships? There are a host of issues that need addressing from a consistent overall moral perspective in accordance with God's will. That's why I believe it is so important for Christians to come together and seek clarity on all of these issues and how to respond to such consistently through the guidance of God's Holy Spirit! |
Long and the short? Rather, the long and the long!! But interesting to know that homosexuality is OK if it's not voluntary!! I suspect most Christians will eventually realise there's nothing wrong with being gay, in the same way as they used to oppose mixed race marriages. Having said all that, there is a much easier way of looking at this... |
69
|
Posted by JimC on 11 Mar 2015 at 12:45AM
Alternatively, we can just accept that what consenting adults do in private is none of our business.
|
|
70
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 11 Mar 2015 at 1:30AM
That would ignore the absolutely vital role that healthy, loving, procreative families need to play in perpetuating any society! One of the glaringly obvious problems faced by those societies which have discarded and/or denigrated valuing such and become too "secularized" is that they no longer reproduce at rates necessary to sustain those societies--and that is true of many societies all over the globe! Undoubtedly it was true of various cultures throughout history that have since disappeared for mysterious reasons unrelated to apparent violence! Undoubtedly it is also true of most societies in Europe and other Western nations and cultures in the present era!
|
What?! Where on earth did that theory come from! Did ancient cultures disappear because they were too gay? LOL |
71
|
Even if there are those who cannot form the type of loving, caring, procreative bonds between a man and a woman that lead to ideal environments in which to raise children and afford them the best opportunity to achieve their potential, that is the overall ideal that God calls us to--and given the myriad ways in which we can allow our sex drives to be misdirected and interfere with this vital purpose, Scripture makes strong points in support of focusing our drives toward this purpose. Christians are not (or rather should not be) prudish killjoys as some would portray us to be, but rather fully focused in expressing our drives in the most loving, caring, and constructive way--and these values ought to be given societal support as well! |
Once again - I'm baffled why the overtly religious are so obsessed with sex. |
72
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by Unitarian Universalist on 11 Mar 2015 at 6:42AM
Jesus said nothing about homosexuality & the Bible does not address loving & commited relationships between people of the same gender. There is a lot more knowledge about such relationships now than there was in Biblical times.
It has been my privilege to know gay people who have been together with one partner longer than than heterosexual married couples we know. They have been there to support my wife & I when needed, and we have been there for them. If that is not a part of God's overall plan, I can't imagine what is.
I also guess my wife & I don't fit into God's "perfect" plan either according your reading of scripture because for some very good reasons, we decided not to have or raise children.
|
|
73
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Pantheist on 11 Mar 2015 at 8:10AM
exactly and there is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence that Jesus himself may have been gay, but that's another topic, IMHO it is far more likely he was married with a family, but the bible also fails to mention that either
|
|
74
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 11 Mar 2015 at 8:48AM
It's odd that Jesus is used as a role model by some Christians, given his own family situation as described in the Bible (which as you rightly point out may not have been the reality). Perhaps Jesus felt families were irrelevant given His belief in an impending apocalypse. He specifically stated His followers should leave their families behind. And I see the argument that homosexual parents cannot provide an “ideal environment in which to raise children.” has also crept into the thread!
Also, I can't help thinking that if the religiose just accepted that what consenting adults do in private is none of their business, they'd have one less thing to worry about and would no longer have to jump through hermeneutical hoops to rationalise their Biblical interpretations. I thought the argument that secular societies will not be sustained unless they reproduce at a faster rate was quite extraordinary - I wonder where that idea came from? It seems to contradict Christian arguments about abortion rates.
|
|
75
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 11 Mar 2015 at 3:42PM
You are clueless on the matter of "consenting" adults and what they do in private. It's not about what two adults do in private. If it was kept private, who'd know. But the LGBT crowd has brought it out for public witness and they demand political and social acceptance which you know very well. And it's not just about the LGBT. It's LGBTX. They keep coming up with new sexual orientations. In some states, if you're a boy but you claim to identify as a girl, they must, by law, allow you to use the girl's bathroom. A woman was recently kicked out of a fitness club for complaining that a man was in the girl's locker room. When she complained, she was told he identified as a woman and he would be allowed to use the girl's locker room - period. The woman complained to fellow female members and was banned from the facility as a result. So stop with the false narrative about "consenting adults do in private." It's a much bigger picture and people who object to such things have a right to voice those objections.
|
Actually I know quite a lot about what consenting adults do in private!
It does seem the Creationist is not a fan of the LGBT movement... and relying on proof by anecdote is a bit lame. Oh well.
|
76
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 11 Mar 2015 at 5:13PM
The question remains unanswered - if the private lives of consenting adults is not the sin, then exactly is the sin that is to be hated?
How can you hate the sin if you can't define it?
|
|
77
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 12 Mar 2015 at 1:28AM
I can define it. But you don't even understand the bigger picture. You don't even know the proper question to ask!!! That is because you are confused as to the real issue. BTW, I never gave my opinion on the statement "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I have a lot of thoughts on that but the discussion never really went that way. You introduced the silly notion about the animal kingdom and homosexuality (displaying your ignorance on animal behavior). Your question to me is not in the context of our discussions in the first place!
|
Classic political dodging... "You don't know the proper question to ask"
And how odd that he has a lot of thoughts on the topic but refuses to discuss the topic.
|
78
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by JimC on 12 Mar 2015 at 8:50AM
It seems to me if you could define it you would have defined it by now. But never mind. Also, I think it's a pity you choose not to comment on the specific topic, when you have lots of thoughts on the topic. You are depriving us of your wisdom which we could perhaps learn from.
p.s. your assertion that I introduced animals into the discussion is factually incorrect.
|
|
79
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 13 Mar 2015 at 1:42AM
lol I have been sharing some of my thoughts as the topic progressed. For it I was told I was insensitive and homophobic.
It certainty wasn't me introducing the idea that the animal kingdom demonstrates the legitimacy of homosexuality in humans. You at least defended that silly notion.
|
I don't think he was accused of being homophobic because he shared his thoughts. And why is he saying I said stuff I didn't say?
|
80
|
Posted by JimC on 13 Mar 2015 at 12:10PM |
|
81
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin
Posted by A Creationist on 13 Mar 2015 at 2:47PM
Your right you didn't bring it up. My bad. Your right the "behavior" I has been observed. But behavior and orientation are two different things. The label given the observed behavior is wrong. Dogs hump. It's instinctive. Not an observed homosexual act. A female dog will hump. There's a video making the rounds where a little dog is playing with a toy and the she/he begins to hump it. Over and over. Is there a word ford that? Oh yeah. It's called instinct.
|
The label given to dogs humping is masturbation. What is he talking about?
|
82
|
Morality doesn't exist if there is no God
|
Hahaha!
|
83
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC on 13 Mar 2015 at 3:03PM |
|
84
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist on 12 Mar 2015 at 1:42AM |
But you were told to crawl into your homophobic box (see line 56)
|
85
|
Ultimately, this discussion has nothing to do with the act of homosexuality as an exclusive sin. Because as you well know, it's not exclusive. In fact, the foundational issue has little to do with same-sex sexual relations. It has to do with sexual purity. And the same rules (God's law or demand if you will) apply to me in the same way they apply to the homosexual. I can't engage in any heterosexual act I choose just because I have the desire to do so and was "born that way." I'm under the same expectation to live a life of purity. So ANY act that falls outside of God's standard for sexual purity is in the SAME sin camp. I think you'd agree with that. This is the fact that the secularists fail to understand. |
Actually it has everything to do with the act of homosexuality. Unless one wants to evade the subject! Perhaps if we try a simple example, he can answer that...
|
86
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by JimC on 12 Mar 2015 at 8:41AM 2) Dave is gay, tells his parents, leaves home, becomes a priest and lives alone with his housekeeper for company. He is celibate. 3) Dave is gay, keeps it a secret from his family, leaves home and lives with another gay man. They are both celibate. 4) Dave is gay, keeps it a secret from his family, leaves home and lives with another gay man. Their relationship is platonic (i.e. affectionate but not sexual). |
|
87
|
Posted by A Creationist on 13 Mar 2015 at 1:37AM |
I don't think it's me that's confused!
|
88
|
I think it makes sense to ask some about their opinion on a topic when they've contributed to a discussion on the topic.
|
|
89
|
Your question on Dave is silly. I can articulate the biblical principle that underlies it all but I won't chase after your silly questions. Get serious. |
In which case, apply the principle to answer the question!
|
90
|
Posted by JimC on 13 Mar 2015 at 12:20PM | |
91
|
2) Dave has not sinned 3) Dave has not sinned 4) Dave has not sinned |
|
92
|
Re: Love the sinner, hate the sin Posted by A Creationist on 13 Mar 2015 at 2:40PM You misunderstand. I can engage in any act my wife and I agree to. I mean I can't go outside the covenant of marriage for it. That would sin against God, my wife, the other, and my own body. |
Well that sounds like a reference to adultery - rather than "sex acts"
|
93
|
I can answer the dave question. But the question itself misses the point. Purity isn't a set of do's and don'ts |
No you can't!
|
94
|
Posted by JimC on 13 Mar 2015 at 2:52PM |
|
Thursday, 12 March 2015
Love the sinner, hate the sin
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" has become a slogan for Christians who consider homosexuality to be a sin but at the same time, want to give the impression they are caring and empathetic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It was shortly after point 56 that the Creationist "chumped" me.
ReplyDeleteI think he might have anger management issues.
ReplyDelete